Are California's Local Flavored Tobacco Sales Restrictions Effective in Reducing the Retail Availability of Flavored Tobacco Products? A Multicomponent Evaluation

Commercial Tobacco Retailers Need to Be Included in Research on Policies Restricting the Sale of Menthol Cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

Menthol cigarettes are disproportionately marketed and advertised in the commercial tobacco retail environment in Black communities across the United States, contributing to menthol cigarette-related disparities and lower likelihood of successful quitting among Black people who smoke. Policies restricting retail sales of menthol cigarettes are aimed at preventing initiation, promoting quitting, and reducing related disparities.

METHODS

Structured phone interview surveys were conducted from January to July 2021 with commercial tobacco retailers in Los Angeles County, California, unincorporated communities with a high percentage of Black residents, eight months after a local policy restricting retail sales of menthol cigarettes and other flavored nicotine and commercial tobacco products became effective on May 20, 2020. Interviews examined menthol cigarette sales restrictions-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

RESULTS

Among 22 retailers interviewed, most (86.4%) reported having knowledge of the local ban on menthol cigarettes, and more than half (54.5%) reported offering price promotions for menthol cigarettes. Additionally, more than half (54.5%) reported believing customers who buy menthol cigarettes would stop smoking altogether following the ban.

CONCLUSIONS

Most retailers reported having knowledge of the menthol ban, yet half reported offering price promotions for menthol cigarettes. Findings suggest retail availability of menthol cigarettes in Los Angeles County unincorporated communities with a high percentage of Black residents, post ban. Public health and policy implications are discussed.

The Impact of Menthol Cigarette Bans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This review investigates the impacts of banning the sale of menthol cigarettes at stores.

METHODS

A systematic search of studies published in English up to November 2022 was conducted. The following databases were searched: PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Embase, as well as a non-indexed journal. Studies evaluating either the impact of real-world or hypothesized menthol cigarette bans were included. Primary outcomes include tobacco use behaviors. Secondary outcomes include cigarette sales, retailer compliance, and the tobacco industry's response to a menthol ban. Data on tobacco use behavior after a menthol ban were pooled using random-effects models. Two pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality.

RESULTS

Of the 964 articles that were identified during the initial search, 78 were included in the review and 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Cessation rates among menthol cigarette smokers were high after a menthol ban. Pooled results show that 24% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 20%, 28%) of menthol cigarette smokers quit smoking after a menthol ban, 50% (95% CI: 31%, 68%) switched to non-menthol cigarettes, 12% (95% CI: 3%, 20%) switched to other flavored tobacco products, and 24% (95% CI: 17%, 31%) continued smoking menthol cigarettes. Hypothesized quitting and switching rates were fairly close to real-world rates. Studies found the tobacco industry attempts to undermine menthol bans. National menthol bans appear more effective than local or state menthol bans.

CONCLUSIONS

Menthol cigarette bans promote smoking cessation suggesting their potential to improve public health.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings from this review suggest that menthol cigarette bans promote smoking cessation among menthol cigarette smokers and have the potential to improve public health.

Changes in Sales of Vaping Products and Cigarettes Associated With the New York State Flavored Vaping Product Sales Restriction

INTRODUCTION

New York (NY) implemented a statewide restriction on the retail sale of flavored vaping products to reduce availability of vaping products having youth-appealing flavors in 2020. We assessed the intended effects of the NY law on sales of flavored vaping products and explored whether policy implementation had unintended effects on consumer behavior by evaluating policy-associated changes in sales of combusted cigarettes, which could serve as more harmful substitute products for NY consumers of flavored vaping products.

AIMS AND METHODS

We analyzed custom product-level weekly retail tobacco sales scanner data for NY and a comparison state (California [CA]) for convenience stores and other outlets from June 2018 through June 2021. We categorized flavor descriptors for vaping products as flavored or as tobacco or unflavored and categorized cigarettes as menthol or non-menthol. We used a difference-in-difference model to assess the effect of the sales restriction on unit sales of flavored and unflavored vaping products and menthol and non-menthol cigarettes in NY compared with CA.

RESULTS

Following NY policy implementation, flavored and total vaping product sales decreased in NY relative to CA. Unflavored vaping product sales increased in NY, while menthol cigarette sales did not change significantly relative to CA sales.

CONCLUSIONS

The NY flavored vaping product policy was associated with fewer sales of flavored and total vaping products. The increase in sales of unflavored vaping products did not suggest complete substitution, and sales data suggest that consumers did not turn to cigarettes after flavored vaping products became unavailable.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides evidence that NY's flavored vaping product policy is associated with reduced flavored vaping product access and sales. Our analyses of potential unintended consequences indicate that some consumers switched from flavored to unflavored vaping products, but that cigarette sales did not change concurrent with the policy which means that decreased availability of flavored vaping products did not result in vapers switching to cigarettes. NY's policy had its intended effect with limited unintended consequences.

Early evidence of flavored tobacco product restrictions in Massachusetts and New York State

INTRODUCTION

With many US states and localities enacting policies that restrict flavored e-cigarette sales, evaluation of these restrictions is critical to inform future efforts. This study analyzed both survey and retail scanner data to assess early-stage impacts of flavored tobacco sales restrictions in Massachusetts and New York State on e-cigarettes sales and product use among young people.

METHODS

This study uses state-level e-cigarette retail sales data and survey data from youth and young adults (aged 13-24 years). Cross-sectional surveys were conducted at two time points in Massachusetts (both post policy implementation) and New York (pre and post policy implementation); retail sales data in both states were analyzed from 2019 through 2020 and compared to sales in control states.

RESULTS

E-cigarette unit sales decreased significantly following the implementation of statewide restrictions on flavored e-cigarettes in both Massachusetts and New York State (p<0.001). Survey data showed a decrease in mint flavored e-cigarette use in Massachusetts and an increase in tobacco flavored e-cigarette use in New York State over time (p=0.001). In both states, a greater proportion of respondents reported using disposable e-cigarettes at Time 2 compared to Time 1 (p=0.001). Among those who reported using fruit-flavored e-cigarettes in New York State, a significantly greater proportion reported disposable device use at Time 2 compared to Time 1 (p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from these case studies from two US states suggest that statewide policies reduce the availability of e-cigarettes and have the potential to reduce use of many youth-appealing flavors. The increase in use of disposable e-cigarettes likely reflects existing loopholes in federal policy, which may be attenuating the potential impact of strong state-level policies.

Hypothetical e-liquid flavor ban and opinions among vape shop retailers in the Greater Los Angeles Area

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating anticipated responses to flavor bans in the context of vape shops is needed to inform legislation and enforcement. This cross-sectional study examined vape shop retailers' opinions about the potential impacts of an e-liquid flavor ban on shop sales and customer behavior-change intentions.

METHODS

From December 2019 to October 2020 we conducted structured interviews over the phone with 46 brick-and-mortar vape shop retailers in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

RESULTS

Most participants were managers (43.5%), followed by owners (26.1%) and clerks (26.1%). More than half (52.2%) reported that sales would drop a lot if flavored e-liquids were banned in all vape shops. Controlling for store position, multivariable linear regression showed that opposition to a hypothetical ban on non-tobacco flavored e-liquids was associated with participants' opinions that customers would likely not purchase tobacco flavored e-liquids (b= -0.44, p<0.01), and would likely use combustible tobacco products (b=0.47, p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cross-sectional study, vape shop retailers in the Greater Los Angeles Area reported that if a ban on non-tobacco e-liquid flavors occurred, they would oppose strongly, and that a ban would have a negative impact on their shop (e.g. loss in sales) and customer behavior (e.g. would replace vaping with smoking combustible tobacco products). Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Impacts of Tax and Flavor Tobacco Policies on San Francisco Bay Area Tobacco Prices

California Proposition 56 increased the state tobacco tax by $2 per cigarette pack effective April 1, 2017. Between 2015-2020 San Francisco (SF) and some cities in Alameda County enacted local flavored tobacco sales restrictions. SF also increased its Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee, from $0.20/pack in 2015 to $1.00 in 2020. Compare the change in tobacco prices before (2015) and after (2019/20) the implementation of a $2 increase in tobacco excise tax and local flavored tobacco policies in SF and Alameda Counties. Descriptive study of the pre-to-post policy analysis design. We drew a proportional random sample of retailers (N=463) in SF and Alameda Counties, by city. Using multivariable, single- and multiple-level linear regressions, we compared inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and by flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Change in inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Between 2015-2019/20, the increase in cigarette prices was higher than the $2 tax increase, and higher in SF than Alameda County (+$4.6 vs +$2.5). SF retailers stopped selling Newport menthol cigarettes and Blu brand menthol e-cigarettes in 2019/20. Adjusted average cigarette prices increased significantly more in SF and Alameda County cities with comprehensive or partial flavor policies versus cities without flavor policies (by $3.23 and $2.11). Local flavor policies affected menthol product availability and may have had positive spillover effects and indirectly increased pack prices.

Variation in adults' use of flavored tobacco products by sales restrictions in California jurisdictions

BACKGROUND

State and local policies prohibiting the sales of flavored tobacco have been effective in curtailing retail availability and sales of products across the United States. Less is known about the use of flavored tobacco which could vary as a function of type of ordinance, product category, policy implementation, and other factors.

METHODS

The 2019-2020 California Health Interview Surveys were used to estimate flavored and non-flavored tobacco use among adults (n = 43,681) residing in a California jurisdiction with a comprehensive (n = 48), partial (n = 35), or no flavored tobacco sales restriction (FTSR) (n = 427). Multinomial logistic regression models, which accounted for clustering within jurisdictions (n = 510), were separately developed for outcomes corresponding to use of any tobacco, non-cigarette tobacco products (NCTPs), electronic nicotine delivery systems, and conventional cigarettes. Individual-level effects of policy on tobacco use were estimated due to the overlap between the survey periods and effective policy dates.

RESULTS

Approximately 22% of Californians were subject to a partial or comprehensive FTSR by December 31, 2020. Accounting for potential confounders, residents of jurisdictions with a comprehensive FTSR (vs. no ban) had 30% lower odds of using any flavored tobacco. The strongest and only statistically significant association by product category was exposure to a comprehensive FTSR and use of a flavored NCTP (aOR=0.4 (0.2, 0.8); p=0.008). Null or positive associations were primarily observed between a partial FTSR and flavored tobacco use, as well as associations between any FTSR and non-flavored tobacco use.

CONCLUSION

Recent passage of a statewide ban in California will close gaps from the patchwork of local policies and eliminate most partial FTSR exemptions. However, state law still exempts the sales of some flavored tobacco products (e.g., hookah), leaving jurisdictions the option of enacting comprehensive FTSRs that may be more effective than partial FTSRs in reducing use of flavored tobacco.

Flavors increase adolescents' willingness to try nicotine and cannabis vape products

BACKGROUND

Certain product characteristics, such as flavor, may increase adolescents' willingness to try vaped nicotine and cannabis (marijuana) products.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment embedded within the 2021-2022 California Teens Nicotine and Tobacco Project Online Survey was administered to a non-probability sample of N = 2342 adolescents ages 12-17. Participants were sequentially presented four randomly-generated pairs of hypothetical vape products that varied in device type (disposable, refillable), content (nicotine, marijuana, "just vapor"), and flavor (seven options) and asked which of these (or neither) they would be more willing to try if a best friend offered. Conditional logistic regression quantified associations between product characteristics and participants' selections, including interactions by past 30-day use of e-cigarettes, marijuana, or both.

RESULTS

Candy/dessert, fruit, and fruit-ice combination flavors were all associated with greater willingness to try a vape product (versus tobacco flavor) among participants not using e-cigarettes or marijuana, those using only e-cigarettes, and those co-using e-cigarettes and marijuana. Among participants only using marijuana, the most preferred flavors were no flavor, candy/dessert, and icy/frost/menthol. Among participants not using e-cigarettes or marijuana, model-predicted willingness to try a displayed vape product was greater when products were sweet or fruit flavored than tobacco or unflavored, regardless of whether displayed options contained nicotine (fruit/sweet: 21 %, tobacco/unflavored: 4 %), marijuana (fruit/sweet: 18 %, tobacco/unflavored: 6 %), or "just vapor" (fruit/sweet: 29 %, tobacco/unflavored: 16 %).

CONCLUSIONS

In this online non-probability sample, flavors in nicotine and cannabis vape products increased adolescents' willingness to try them. Comprehensive bans on flavored vapes would likely reduce adolescent use.

Flavored Tobacco Sales Restrictions and Teen E-cigarette Use: Quasi-experimental Evidence From California

INTRODUCTION

Flavored tobacco sales restrictions (FTSRs) are implemented to reduce access to flavored tobacco products. We examined the association between seven cities with local FTSRs implemented in 2018/2019 and e-cigarette use among high school students in the California Bay Area.

AIMS AND METHODS

We analyzed data from the California Healthy Kids Survey using a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) strategy. We compared pre- and post-policy changes one year after implementation in current and ever e-cigarette use among students attending school in a city with a FTSR (exposed) (n = 20 832) versus without (unexposed) (n = 66 126). Other outcomes included ever marijuana use in an e-cigarette and ease of access to e-cigarettes.

RESULTS

Pre- to post-policy, the adjusted odds of current and ever e-cigarette use did not significantly change among students exposed and unexposed to a FTSR. In the adjusted D-I-D analysis, the odds of current (aOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.65) and ever e-cigarette use (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.26) did not significantly change by exposure group. However, one year post-implementation, the odds of ease of access to e-cigarettes significantly increased among exposed (aOR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.27, 1.95) and unexposed students (aOR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.39, 1.70). Similarly, the odds of ever using marijuana in an e-cigarette significantly increased among exposed (aOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.53) and unexposed students (aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Local FTSRs in the California Bay Area were not associated with a change in e-cigarette use one year post-implementation. Increased ease of access and marijuana use may be explanatory factors.

IMPLICATIONS

FTSRs were not associated with a decrease in current or ever e-cigarette use among high school students in the California Bay Area one-year post-implementation. Potential explanatory factors are that ease of access to e-cigarettes and using marijuana in an e-cigarette increased. More research is needed to understand the influence of these factors on youth access and behaviors. To address the youth e-cigarette epidemic, a comprehensive approach is needed, including policies, media campaigns, education programs, and cessation tools targeted to youth.

Centering equity in flavored tobacco ban policies: Implications for tobacco control researchers

To achieve equity in protection from poor health outcomes due to tobacco use, tobacco control policies and interventions need to affect socially disadvantaged groups more strongly than advantaged groups. Flavored tobacco bans have been seen as a policy with this potential. However, tobacco control researchers, in close concert with policy advocates, need to consider how to center equity throughout the policy process to achieve equitable outcomes from banning flavored tobacco. In this commentary, we outline the rationale for how and why tobacco control researchers should consider equity throughout the policy process to help fully achieve the potential of flavored tobacco ban policies. These recommendations emerged from a presentation at the Vermont Center on Behavior and Health 2021 Conference. Specifically, we focus on recommendations for tobacco control researchers to center equity including partnering with communities in agenda setting, examining how various policy formulations or exemptions may increase or decrease disparities, determining where flavor policies need to reach and whether policies are equitably reaching all populations disproportionately burdened by flavored tobacco, assessing whether policy implementation/enforcement is carried out equitably to maximize policy benefits, and evaluating policy impact with as much granularity as possible. Considering the entire policy process is central to enhancing equitable outcomes from banning flavored tobacco. Tobacco control researchers can play a key role in ensuring that these policies are viewed through an equity lens to, not just improve population health, but also to reduce harms to those disproportionately burdened by use of flavored products.

Closing the loopholes on a flavored cigar ban: Anticipated challenges and solutions

For the first time since Congress authorized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco in 2009, FDA proposed two tobacco product standards on May 4, 2022. After a period of public comment and agency review, if the product standards are finalized in their current form, they will ban menthol cigarettes (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2022b), which comprised 37% of the U.S. cigarette market in 2019 and 2020 (Federal Trade Commission, 2021), and flavored cigars (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2022a), which have exceeded 50% of cigar sales since 2012 (Delnevo et al., 2021b). This commentary examines potential challenges to banning flavored cigars and highlights issues FDA and Congress should consider.

The actual and anticipated effects of restrictions on flavoured electronic nicotine delivery systems: a scoping review

Objective

To synthesize the outcomes of policy evaluations of flavoured electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) restrictions.

Data sources

PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science before May 3, 2022.

Study selection

Studies that report sales, behaviour, or compliance outcomes related to implemented or hypothetical ENDS flavour restrictions.

Data extraction

Restriction details, whether implemented or hypothetical, whether additional products were restricted, jurisdictional level, study locations, and outcomes classified by sales, behaviour, and compliance.

Data synthesis

We included 30 studies. Of those, 26 were conducted exclusively in the US, two in India, and two surveyed respondents in multiple countries, including the US. Twenty-one evaluated implemented restrictions, while nine considered hypothetical restrictions. Five studies evaluated product sales, 17 evaluated behaviour, and 10 evaluated compliance, with two studies reporting multiple outcomes. Two studies reported an increase and one a reduction in cigarette sales following restrictions, while three reported reductions in ENDS sales. Behavioural studies presented a mixed view of the impacts of regulations on ENDS and cigarette use. However, the use of disparate outcomes limits the comparability of studies. Studies of hypothetical restrictions suggest decreased ENDS use, increased cigarette use, and increased use of illicit markets. Studies of compliance with flavoured product restrictions that included ENDS found that 6–39% of stores sold restricted flavoured products post-restrictions. Online stores remain a potential source of restricted products.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the need for additional research on the impacts of ENDS restrictions. Research should further evaluate the impact of restrictions on youth and adult use of nicotine and tobacco products in addition to the effects of restrictions in countries beyond the US to enable a robust consideration of the harm-benefit trade-off of restrictions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14440-x.

Associations between living in localities with e-cigarette sales restrictions and e-cigarette use change among young adults in Los Angeles County

INTRODUCTION

Local e-cigarette sales restrictions (ESRs) may impact e-cigarette use. This study examined the associations between living in localities with various ESR policies and changes in e-cigarette use among young adults in Los Angeles (LA) County, California, USA.

METHODS

Data were from a cohort of LA County young adults (18-21 years; n=2100) who completed two waves of surveys (Fall 2018-Summer 2019 and Summer-Fall 2020). Local flavoured (n=9) and comprehensive (n=2) ESRs in LA County implemented between June 2019 and May 2020 were identified, coded and merged with the baseline data. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to examine the associations between living in ESR localities and e-cigarette use at follow-up, controlling for covariates and stratified by cigarette smoking at baseline.

RESULTS

Overall, 20.9% and 14.3% of participants lived in localities with flavoured and comprehensive ESRs, respectively. Participants who were non-Hispanic, had higher socioeconomic statuses and were currently using e-cigarettes were generally more likely to live in ESR localities than their counterparts. The associations between living in ESR localities and e-cigarette use at follow-up were not found among baseline non-e-cigarette users regardless of their cigarette smoking status; a positive relationship was found among baseline e-cigarette users who also smoked cigarettes but not among non-smokers.

DISCUSSION

Participants who lived in localities with various ESR policies were different in their baseline e-cigarette use and socioeconomic backgrounds. Future research examining the potential impact of ESRs on e-cigarette use change should consider the localities' overall sociodemographic and tobacco-using characteristics and individuals' cigarette smoking histories.

Policies restricting flavors and non-cigarette tobacco product availability: A study of vape shops in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, California, USA

We examined flavored non-cigarette tobacco availability in brick-and-mortar vape shops in San Francisco (SF) and Alameda Counties, California (USA), comparing cities organized by flavored tobacco sales restriction policy. A total of 22 brick-and-mortar vape shops were identified and audited in October-November 2019; shops were located in SF City-County and nine cities in Alameda County. Fisher Exact Tests were used to assess differences in the availability of products between vape shops in cities with versus without comprehensive or partial flavored tobacco sales restrictions enacted before November 21, 2019 (n = 15 shops in six cities with policies vs n = 7 shops in four cities without policies). In the six cities with any flavored sales restrictions, fewer vape shops sold menthol/mint flavored JUUL pods (27% vs 71%, p = 0.074), candy/fruit (53% vs 100%, p = 0.051) and menthol/mint (53% vs 100%, p = 0.051) nicotine e-cigarette liquids compared to cities without flavored tobacco sales restrictions, but results were borderline significant. Tobacco-flavored JUUL pods (47% vs 71%, p = 0.381), tobacco-flavored nicotine e-cigarette liquids (67% vs 100%, p = 0.135), and flavored e-cigarette liquids without nicotine (candy/fruit: 87% vs 71%, p = 0.565 and menthol/mint: 87% vs 57%, p = 0.274) were not included in the policies, and availability was not significantly different between cities with or without policies. Enactment of local policies was associated with lower flavored e-cigarette tobacco product availability but not tobacco-flavored or non-nicotine product availability; federal policies restricting sales of flavored tobacco products may reduce access to flavored e-cigarette products in vape shops.